Tag Archives: constitutional

“We need to break through this private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to their whole communities.” – MSNBC Host Melissa Harris-Perry states

Children today are considered village property. While some believe parental rights depend on elected official’s vote, this conjures up images of communist or fascist youth. As Hilary Clinton declared, “It Takes A Village To Raise A Child.”

Alexander Hamilton described the people’s rights best be in “a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government.” Government “is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns.” Big government advocates advocate for positive rights, parental rights granted by government. In other words, children become property of the state.

The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights declares that everyone has a right to education. Article 26 states “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.” In 1989, the UN Convention on the Rights of a Child declares states are responsibility to eliminate “ignorance and illiteracy throughout the world.” It goes on that “education given in such institutions shall conform to such minimum standards as may be laid down by the State.” The Parental Rights Amendment establishes such parental responsibility.

In 1992, Lawyers capitalize on children’s rights with Gregory K as the first child in American history to sue his parents for a divorce. Judge Kirk declared that the boy has the same constitutional right to protect his fundamental interests as an adult. This established “a precedent for other cases.”

In 1992, Gregory K sued his parents for abuse. In 2014, young adults are suing for college tuition. 21-year old, Caitlyn Ricci sued her parents for college tuition despite neither parent seeing her for the last two years. 18-year old, Rachel Canning sued her parents for financial support and college tuition. Her parents said she left home because she didn’t want to obey their rules.

United States has yet ratified the United Nations treaty but NGOs are still pushing for the Parental Rights Amendment. The Parental Rights Amendment declares “The liberties of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children is a fundamental right.” This amendment grants positive rights to the parent. It provides the liberties of parents “the right to choose public, private, religious, or home schools, and the right to make reasonable choices within public schools for one’s child.”

NGOs seek to establish a “Big Brother” using the history of children’s rights to collectivize children. The true question is whether our children belong to the family or are collective property organized under “the State.”

The Supreme Court’s Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the progressive wing of the court to effectively uphold the individual mandate of the Obamacare law. In an unusually direct example of legislating from the bench, Justice Roberts argued that although the mandate to cover health insurance was unconstitutional as a penalty, it was constitutionally permissible under the Congress’ taxing powers.

This is an absurd argument that contradicts even President Obama’s own reasoning that the individual mandate is “not a tax.” Nowhere in the healthcare law itself was the individual mandate ever labeled as a tax, and for a member of a court to imply that the law is feasible under such an arrangement, boggles the mind.

But here we are America, on the cusp of seeing the biggest tax on the middle class in the nation’s history. All in the midst of an economy the Vice President recently called “a depression for millions.” And the market will continue to tank. The jobless rate will continue to rise. And insurance premiums will continue to soar. That has been the plan all along; to force us into the single payer system that Obama supports by hook or by crook.

It is inconceivable that the Congress has the authority to “tax” individuals into buying private health insurance or else be forced to enroll in the so-called “public option.”

What America is experiencing is a complete breakdown of our system of laws, devolving into a government ruled by a unified cohort of self-interested men. The law is being deformed to suit predetermined political ends, which are directed towards dissolving individual liberty and strengthening centralized power.

Thomas Jefferson was prescient when he declared of the argument that the judiciary is the final recourse against tyranny:

If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our constitution a complete felo de se [suicide pact]. […] The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes.Independence can be trusted no where but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law.

And indeed, nine men in robes had their say in court today. But we concerned citizens will have our final say in the court of public opinion via the ballot box come November. For today’s ruling should not be taken as a demoralizing rejection of the Constitution’s principles, which live so long as they survive in our hearts.

But it is a sad day that one of the institutions of our government has so debased itself as to become a trivial appendage of tyrannical men. The Supreme Court has lowered itself to the same standard as politicized courts around the world, making the United States that much less exceptional.

It is not the first time the Supreme Court has sided with the abusive power of government over the freedom of the citizens, and it will not be the last, so long as the unvarnished progressive Justice Roberts presides in the court.

But this is a rallying cry to raise the American flag, and to reassert with all force that can be mustered to oppose growing tyranny in our once great country. Whether by the ballot box, or by state nullification, or by civil revolt, tyranny will be opposed in this nation. And a Supreme Court ruling is not going to change that political reality.